User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 84

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

→

Archive 90

This Month in GLAM: August 2014

This Month in GLAM – Volume IV, Issue VIII, August 2014 Headlines France report: Subtitling, Presenting, Flying Germany report: GLAM at Wikimania Mexico report: Wikipedia goes to Tlatelolco and Colmex Netherlands report: Content donations; Project Nature; GLAMwiki 2015; Meetup the Bonnefantenmuseum Sweden report: #Dåochnu, Wikimania; members meeting UK report: Wikimania and more Open Access report: Open Access at Wikimania; Citathon Calendar: September's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 13:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert on Peter Russell

Thank you, nice to see a previously forgotten British (we think) fashion designer make it to main page...who knows, someone may even help supply the missing bits of his story. Many thanks for letting me know. Libby norman (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for creating and nominating the article. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MeropeRiddle

He has agreed to drop the stick; since it's 4:40 in the morning in England, I have assumed good faith and unblocked him, and am notifying you of the same. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's excellent news, thanks Mike. Merope, welcome back. Sorry about all that; you'vehad a bumpy few weeks on Wikipedia, but I hope the rest of your time here goes better. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Right on. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

• Op-ed: Media Viewer software is not ready

• Traffic report: Refuge in celebrity

• Featured content: The louse and the fish's tongue

• WikiProject report: Checking that everything's all right

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

AE ping

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result of the appeal by Darkness Shines. This appeal is running out of gas unless those who favor lifting will agree on a specific modification. Notifying you as one of the possible lifters. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modern Locomotives Illustrated, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamford. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What the heck did the editor do?

What did the editor User:Doxelary do to be hardblocked indefinitely other than the vague 'not here' reason you left. You also disabled talk page and email access, specifically prohibited unless there is abuse in those actions per WP:HARDBLOCK Which there weren't. Additionally, which bit of WP:NOTHERE applied to this user? Do I have to make a WP:ANI request so that you'll be accountable for your administrator actions? Tutelary (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You make me laugh. The reason is patently obvious to anyone who's not pushing an agenda, and it does amuse me that you're not getting all righteous about the IP that I blocked. You're very good at regurgitating policy, but does it not occur to you that the community would not have put up with me through four and a half years and nigh 10,000 blocks (and c.40,000 admin actions) if I wasn't intimately familiar with policy and its practical application? And I am accountable for my admin actions—voluntarily to any member of the community in good standing, and involuntarily to the community as a whole via ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not plainly obvious why you hardblocked them--removing talk page and email access when there is no abuse on those fronts. Tutelary (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been appalled watching the treatment of Tutelary and Titanium Dragon. I hope it's not policy to gang up on doxxing/harassment victims. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not consider the hardblock to be terribly obvious or justified. Even with evident sockpuppets we do not resort to such measures automatically. Perhaps you can explain the reasoning to me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's quite common for 'new' accounts that are clearly attempting to evade scrutiny; it prevents the account from using the email system to continue such evasion, and prevents their talk page from becoming a forum (as they all too often do) for a whole host of things not related to writing the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have seen plenty of block-evading socks get blocked. Even socks associated with harassment of editors do not typically get hardblocked automatically. Do you have any significant examples showing this to be a common response?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to go trawling through the block log to find examples, no; that would be a waste of time that could be better spent writing the encyclopaedia (that is what we're here for, isn't it, or is that just a distraction from project-space drama?). What I can offer is anecdotal evidence, having made more blocks than most admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked over your own logs and while you do sometimes remove talk and e-mail access for block evaders, you are by no means consistent as sometimes it is just a standard block. Do you have reason to believe this is someone evading a block rather than using multiple accounts? You are even less consistent on those sorts of blocks. Not to mention I can point to plenty of cases where confirmed and obvious socks that regularly engage in harassment or outing of other editors are not immediately stripped of talk and e-mail access. Honestly, you probably shouldn't even be handling this since you explicitly supported a site ban against Tutelary and immediately raised Doxelary as a possible sock of Tutelary in that discussion after the block, hence there are WP:INVOLVED issues to consider. Hardblocking the account only makes it look like you are trying to keep the operator of the Doxelary account from contradicting your suggestion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you went though 9,000-odd log entries? And you don't think that time might have been better spent writing an article that's a serious question—if you've got that sort o time an initiative, I'd much rather you put it to use in the mainspace rather than arguing over drama? My intent was less to do with preventing Doxelary from contradicting me as to prevent them from using that account full stop. I don't think I'm involved, or at least wasn't at that point, and I'd be very surprised if Doxelary turned out to be Tutelary. Much more likely it's one of the serial ban-evaders. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to which one—the list is too long. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There's this handy search function on my browser. It allows me to see when certain standard comments occur such as "cannot edit own talk page" or "block evasion" and so on and so forth. Cuts down bunches on time. Granted, I did not look over all your logs, only back to 2012. I figured that was sufficient to get an idea of how common it is for you to hardblock an account. You may say you don't think it is Tutelary, but your comment at ANI certainly did not work hard to disabuse anyone of the notion. As far as not being involved, it is hard to say that when it was over a day after you emphatically stated your support for a site-ban of Tutelary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is my 3rd-party, neutral observation: User:Doxelary wrote an entry on Jimbo's Talk page. HJ Mitchell then hardblocked User:Doxelary. Tutelary asked HJ Mitchell, Why? In response, HJ Mitchell did not answer the question and instead replied with the insult, "You make me laugh. The reason is patently obvious to anyone who's not pushing an agenga..." Allegedly, I am smarter than the average bear (so some people say), I do not believe I am pushing an agenda, and I am a neutral observer who happened to stumble across this and my response is, "HJ Mitchell, What gives?!? It is not at all obvious to me why you blocked the user. Why don't you simply answer a reasonable question instead of ridiculing the questioner? If the reason is so obvious, just tell us what the reason is." Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave my rationale for the block in the block log, and my rationale for removing talk page and email access above, and I have no time for the original questioner as they're only interested in the block that doesn't suit their agenda, and because they are an obvious troll whom I'd rather not feed (see WP:ANI#Tutelary for the details of that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have read your comment in the block log. The original questioner apparently read your comment in the block log ("other than the vague 'not here' reason you left") but still specifically asked for the reason of the block which you have finally provided more detail -- but only after several requests and your reasoning remains far from obvious to me. Rather than antagonizing and insulting a questioner, in the future it might be better to spend the same amount of time you already spend provoking and ridiculing them ("You make me laugh...") and simply answer the question. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does that cat look so pissed off?

But that is not why I am posting here, are you entirely sure I get to pick the article, and you police it? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to know what somebody to it! Yes, you get to pick the article, but pick wisely—I'd advise against biting off more than you can chew or picking a seriously hot-button topic. Once you've chosen, I'll note it on the log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Taliban, , if I can do that, then the wiki is my mollusc Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, what happened to the bit about biting off more than you can chew or picking a seriously hot-button topic? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Taliban are old news now, positively kitten-like in their stature. Although, perhaps a very pissed-off kitten... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

How about Female infanticide in India? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That seems a sensible selection. If that's the one you want to go with, I'll update the log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You know I do not do sensible . Update and let me get to work. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Get to work, then. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

a question

hello, i have seen a lot of links and tags like this < ref > fixing to irrelevant content on few articles. moreover there are {cites} that should be in the ==External Links== sections. Could you explain me how to mark them for review by wikipedians like you or adminstator? Thanks 86.157.22.115 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the best thing to do is probably to move/remove/edit the links yourself, and if it becomes a problem, you can let me know or ask for help at WP:AN. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For your work on blocking these vandals!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I just block 'em—it's folks like you that do the hard bot. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

• In the media: Turkish Twitter outrage, medical translation, audience metrics

• WikiProject report: A trip up north to Scotland

• News and notes: Wikipedia's traffic statistics are off by nearly one-third

• Traffic report: Tolstoy leads a varied pack

• Featured content: Which is not like the others?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Uw-causeblock

Thank you for blocking Law Commission England and Wales. Would you mind adding the {{Uw-causeblock}} to their talk page so they have some idea what to do next? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

They'll see the template (transcluded, not the code) when they try to edit through some MediaWiki magic, and I sent them an email explaining the problem (it's not every day such a respectable organisation creates an account here), but I suppose the template on the talk page doesn't hurt anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know they would see the template when trying to edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Your promise not to continue is accepted"

Hi. How are you? Thanks for your continued interest in, and work for, Wikipedia. When another editor wrote, "Before I can dive into this, please first revert the edit I mentioned" you characterized my second response (above) as "antagonizing" and "provoking". I was not born with the gene that allows me to understand this but since I neither wish to antagonize nor provoke please help me understand which of the following should also be avoided:

1. "You stated before you can dive into this, I must revert the edit you mentioned" (verbatim restatement)
2. "You stated before you continue I must revert the edit"
3. "You stated you will not continue until I revert"
4. "Your statement is that you will not continue until I revert"
5. "Your statement is that you will not continue until I revert and this is okay"
6. "Your statement is that you will not continue and this is okay"
7. "Your statement not to continue is okay"
8. "Your promise not to continue is okay"
9. "Your promise not to continue is accepted" (described as "antagonizing" and "provoking")

Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he was promising not to continue something. He was asking you to revert yourself because you had arguably violated the 1RR that applies to all Israel-Palestine articles, so it's understandable that he was less than impressed with your response. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was DePiep's idea to declare / state / promise / inform the reader of a refusal to discuss the subject matter on the Talk page until I complied with the order to revert the edit, after I had already explained that I did not agree with the characterization of it as a 1RR violation. That was exactly what DePiep then did: refused to discuss the subject matter as if making some sort of political statement through the refusal to engage in a discussion on the Talk page. The statement / declaration / promise / threat / prediction that henceforth no discussion would be forthcoming was not my idea. It was DePiep's idea. I only restated what DePiep had already written and I simply agreed and accepted the decision to carry out the threat ("[I will not dive into this until after you follow my order.]" "[OK, I accept that.]") I thought I was being agreeable by accepting the solution that was presented to me by DePiep. To the extent that there is any disagreement with DePiep writing that DePiep would not "dive into this" ("continue"?) before I complied with the order, this should be taken up with DePiep, not me. I only agreed with and accepted DePiep's suggestion.

As I understand, you are suggesting that #7 ("Your statement not to continue is okay") would have been a reasonable restatement of what he had written said but #8 ("Your promise not to continue is okay") becomes antagonizing and provoking? To me, these have very nearly the same meaning so I am trying to figure out which statements should be avoided. As I said, I was just not born with the gene to understand why this is the case so I will rely on your judgment that the use of the word "promise" instead of "statement" is the problem. Do I understand this correctly #8 is the issue here? If I had simply written "Your statement not to continue is okay" I would have been simply restating what DePiep wrote and this would not be provoking and antagonizing?

SeattliteTungsten (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. How are you? Thanks for your continued interest in, and work for, Wikipedia. I asked you what, exactly, was "antagonizing" and "provocative" about my answering "Your promise not to continue is accepted" in response to DePiep's statement, "Before I can dive into this, please first revert the edit I mentioned." It seems to me that you ought to have chastised DePiep for a continued refusal to discuss suggested changes on the Talk page.

I believe my behavior was proper. In response to an editorial disagreement, as soon as this was called to my attention I immediately stopped editing and started a discussion on the Talk page. My comments on the article Talk page were appropriate and were not personal. However, when I *agreed* and *accepted* what the other editor wrote ("Before I [continue]...", "Your promise... is accepted") somehow this caused you to caution me about my behavior. I am suggesting, perhaps, that you might have a problem with DePiep's refusal to discuss the topic civilly and it is only when I echo DePiep's bad behavior, its offensiveness becomes clear. You have taken exception with what I wrote ("Your promise... is accepted") when I merely agreed with what DePiep suggested. If you have a problem with that, don't blame me for accepting it: maybe it would be better to direct your exception to the originator of the promise/statement.

I think it might help to understand why I am confused about this by considering the numbered statements I wrote above. The first is a verbatim restatement of what was already written -- you can't reasonably blame me for that. The others all have nearly the same meaning, to me, and I'm wondering why this is not the case for you. However, somehow #9 becomes offensive. Which of the numbered statements are offensive to you? SeattliteTungsten (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I am, again, asking why my response restating another editor's statement and agreeing with it warranted a caution from you. To illustrate why I thought it was reasonable for me to restate the other person's statement and accept it, I asked you which of the above statements you considered offensive. I am wondering whether you believe #1 is offensive and, if not, when morphing to #9 becomes offensive. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. How are you? Thanks for your continued interest in, and work for, Wikipedia. When another editor wrote, "Before I can dive into this, please first revert the edit I mentioned" you cautioned me and wrote my second response (above) was "antagonizing" and "provoking". I had already explained that I did not agree with the other editor's characterization that required a revert. I stopped editing, began a discussion on the talk page, and solicited feedback from others -- which seemed, and seems, like the appropriate response. The other editor has been unwilling to discuss the previous or proposed changes. I was not born with the gene that allows me to understand why you characterize my response as "antagonizing" and "provoking because it really seems reasonable, IMHO, to simply restate what the other editor said and to agree with (accept) it.

I am asking you, again, to please tell me which of the statements (above and below) are objectionable. It really seems like a stretch to claim the first one is objectionable and the other ones seem very similar to me so I can't figure out what your objection is. If you continue to refuse to explain this, would you mind please removing your caution from my user page and anywhere else you referenced this?

1. "You stated before you can dive into this, I must revert the edit you mentioned" (verbatim restatement)

3. "You stated you will not continue until I revert"

5. "Your statement is that you will not continue until I revert and this is okay"

7. "Your statement not to continue is okay"

9. "Your promise not to continue is accepted" (described as "antagonizing" and "provoking")

Thanks a million. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Bosstin22

Since you deleted this user's defamatory edits for Jessica Biel, could you please do the same for their edits to Anthony Bennett (basketball)? Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to over-use RevDl, so I'm generally reluctant to use it in cases like this unless the material is truly disgusting or seriously defamatory—above and beyond the normal childish vandalism that any article on a high-profile person is likely to get. In this case, two of the edits are arguably on the borderline, and I've deleted them, but the third I'm not going to delete because that's more like childish vandalism than serious defamation. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Undetected

(Not me, I'm never undetected)

There's no need to parrot obvious mistakes just because they are in a report. Maybe a note would help. Belle (talk)

The trouble there (it took me a moment to work out the context, but I assume you're talking about this edit?) is that that is a matter of some controversy, even to this day. The official version of events is that he entered undetected (and that's significant). There's significant evidence to the contrary (which is discussed at length further on in the article), but including the official account is not the same as "parroting" it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ooops

I ll leave you to it Victuallers (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roger! Nice to see I'm not the only admin paying attention! I'm done for the moment—I think I'll leave the last prep til morning to allow time for any last-minute corrections etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

• In the media: Plagiarism and vandalism dominate Wikipedia news

• News and notes: Media Viewer—Wikimedia's emotional roller-coaster

• Traffic report: Viral

• Featured content: Cheats at Featured Pictures!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Request

hey Mitch. I request you to take a look and review Lucknow article for GA status. I've worked tirelessly on the article and now all it needs is an honest GA review. Do help me out if you can. Thanking you. Wikiboy2364 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikiboy2364. Thanks for thinking of me, but it's not a subject I know anything about and I'm a bit busy with projects of my own at the minute, so I don't think I'd be the best person to take on the GA review. Somebody more local might be better suited. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

how can i change it?

hi mitchell, here there are some mistakes regarding "the ethnicity of population (2011 est)". I can not change the %, how can i chant them? Thnaks. 109.154.1.30 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You should just be able to click "edit", as long as you have a source, and make your change. Where are you having problems? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Rona Fairhead

Hi Mr Mitchell, I am new to this and could find no other way to type in a message to you... Apologies :-) I am aware that you say please correct politely, so here goes:... Rona Fairhead has been nominated but not yet actually appointed to the BBC chair post. Sincerely, David McManus / alias BrickJimson 31/8/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrickJimson (talk • contribs) 03:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. BrickJimson, thanks for bringing that to my attention—the way the BBC were talking last night I assumed it was a done deal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

PERM

Harry, your opinion needed here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Not sure what you want me to do there. I wouldn't have overridden another admin like that, especially not in a case of arguable block evasion, but then it's easy enough to revoke the rights if they're misused. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you,ve confirmed what I expected you would say. The admin in question has already apologised. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

New 'Right'

Hi HJ! Tooo long no 'chat'!
Thanks for the wp:reviewer right. (not quite New Right!) Hope it comes in useful. I note that I can now " ... remove yourself as reviewer from articles." Which I've wanted to do in the past when I tagged a page with wp:Twinkle but forgot to un-tick "mark page as patrolled". But how do I do it? Does a control appear only on page that I have personally reviewed? --220 of ^Borg 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Too long indeed! Reviewer rights are only any use on articles with pending-changes protection enabled. When an IP or a brand new account edits the article, the edit's placed in a queue, and you, with your newfound reviewer rights, can choose to accept or reject the edit. The "mark this page as patrolled" is to do with new-page patrol, which is a different process and doesn't have anything to do with reviewer rights (which is part of the reason the latter was recently renamed "pending-changes reviewer". Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello Mitchell! This is in regards to "Rollback rights" as per this. I would like to know if there any open end(s) that are to be fixed? 7Sidz (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No I'm happy enough to grant you rollback, but keep doing what you've been doing with good-faith edits—don't use rollback, use edit summaries, and be nice to newbies. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

TYVM

Since the Thank You notifications are being modified and presently do not seem to work, I've come here to thank you very much for this revert of an ad crusade! – Paine  17:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not entirely convinced it wasn't just a troll pretending be a spammer, but either way it has no place here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: TvNolly deletion from wikipedia

Hello HJ,

You just deleted an article I did create about a corporate organization (TvNolly). To the best of my knowledge and understanding of wikipedia encyclopedia; I have done my best to structure the article on TvNolly to conform with wikipedia guidelines and statutes. However, since you feel I am getting the write-up wrong; I do wish to use this medium to sincerely solicit your assistance in structuring the article with respect to your own opinions on what you feel should be the TRUE content of the article.

I earnestly do wait in anticipation for a prompt and favourable response from you soonest.

Bhevencious: I deleted the article because it seemed to be written in a promotional tone, rather than the objective, factual tone expected of an encyclopaedia article. I see you've re-created it. The tone of the new version is much better, but you don't seem to have established why TvNolly is important enough to have an encyclopaedia, so it may well be deleted again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello HJ,

Thanks for your concern and response. TvNolly is an online multimedia streaming organization headquarted at Lagos. Basically, with time it is of my opinion to carry-out further research and discoveries in a bid to update the content of the TvNolly article on wikipedia.

Additionally, I sincerely do welcome any contribution/assistance of any kind from you.

Thanks for your outstanding gesture. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhevencious (talk • contribs) 18:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Lithistman

HJ Mitchell, could I ask that you have a look at the situation over at John Barrowman, and your block of User:Lithistman? While I agree that he went too far in attempting to add that source, and should have stopped after the first two reverts, I also see that there looks to be a consensus on the talk page that supported the edit. There also seems to be a discussion at the BLP noticeboard that would support the use of that source. Given those two discussions, I'm inclined to unblock - with the condition that lithistman not attempt to re-add the source until the BLP/N thread has been closed by a neutral admin after a full discussion. Do you have any thoughts on this proposal? I did not see any discussion over at RFPP that would suggest any issues beyond this series of reverts, and I discount the ANI thread entirely - so I'm not sure there's a reason to keep him blocked if he agrees to back off and let the discussion play out. Thanks in advance for having a look. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have responded while I was typing this out. If LHM were to offer assurances that he would back off of this source issue until consensus was clear, would you consider an unblock? His point about the good faith of that RFPP report is a fair one, given the issues between him and Drmies, but I refer here only to LHM's actions and assurances. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick responses - too quick for me to keep up with! Much appreciated. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for unblocking. And thank you to Ultraexactzz for reviewing my unblock request and seeming to find some merit there as well. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You're both welcome. Hopefully next time we cross paths it will be in happier circumstances. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I also wanted to say thank you for unblocking. I've always found you to be fair and reasonable. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Viriditas, you might have just made my day. Admins get plenty of abuse, which you just get used to, but it's not very often someone says something nice! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Or, I can say 1000 nice things, but if I say 1 not so nice thing, people will only point out the 1 not so nice thing and ignore the 1000 nice things. At least in my experience. The human mind recognizes and remembers negative experiences and tends to dismiss the positive ones. For survival reasons, of course. This is why first impressions are everything. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Negative interactions do have a way of sticking in the memory I suppose, but a little appreciation can go a long way. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• I want to make certain you know that Drmies remarks at his talkpage ascribing to me a dim view of your intelligence in no way actually reflect my views. His interpretations are his alone. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't it amazing the sheer number of personal attacks we get from Drmies on a daily basis? And if you or I even try to respond, we either get reported or blocked. Something is seriously wrong here. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • May I suggest you either file that ArbCom case or just give Drmies a wide berth? I don't doubt the sincerity of your feelings, but even if you could prove the allegations to me, there's not much I could do about it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked IP Address

Hi, a fellow editor from the Philippines who is actually a volunteer on one of our local chapter projects encountered an IP Address he uses is blocked 203.87.254.0/23 and it's preventing him to edit on Wikipedia even if he is logged in. I'm not certain if he is using a prepaid mobile broadband which I think may randomly obtain IP Addresses, but it is preventing him to continue working on articles. I already messaged User:Tegel and he found it is locally blocked on the English Wikipedia and not globally. Can the block on the IP Address be restricted only to anonymous editors? -- Namayan (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm stalking here, but the user can request that they get IP block exemption if there is a history of logged-in accounts abusing those IP addresses. Still, it can be restricted to just anonymous users, but from the looks of it, there is block evasion, so that probably won't be supported. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the likely work-around for that? I understand the editor is using mobile broadband internet connection, and I'm not certain if he shares IP address with someone else on the network. -- Namayan (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There were some serious issues with that range earlier this week. The best thing to do is to give them IP block exemption. if you give me their username (by email if you prefer), I'll sort it out. Might be a couple of hours before I can get to my computer so perhaps Kevin mignt be willing to help if he sees it first? Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 12:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's User:Carlojoseph14 who's having the problem. -- Namayan (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've just booted my computer up quickly to grant them IPBE. That should solve the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Namayan and HJ Mitchell!. Problem solved! --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks HJ Mitchell! -- Namayan (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

South Park (season 18)

Would it be possible to unprotect South Park (season 18) and allow for it to be created there? I have no idea why people kept trying to remove it, as the season was appearing days after the warring was going on and has already premiered, so I was wondering if you'd be able to create it since the whole edit war was a bit unnecessary. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kevin, it's only semi'd, ad only for a few days. There was an RfPP request where somebody felt that it was being created prematurely by newbies. I see somebody's created it again and it seems to be sticking, so I'll take the semi off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, as I was trying to move the draft page onto there and noticed the protection. Either way, no harm done! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

For adding me to OTRS members--ukexpat (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Any time. And if you know of anyone else who should have it, let me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you give me the user right too? I've been an OTRS agent for some time now. Andrew³²⁷ 04:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

PC-protection expiring on Sept 30 or before

Erwin Rommel and Percy Jackson (film series)? --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Extended to indef for Rommel and for a year for Percy Jackson. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Good Article review?

Hey, HJ. I saw that you previously did the GA review for the Michael Phelps article. I have three newly nominated GAs (Catie Ball, Tracy Caulkins, Nicole Haislett) that are relatively clean and should require only a moderate amount of work to comply and be promoted. All three subjects are American swimmers who were Olympic gold medalists, so there also should be a certain commonality of subject matter and regarding potential GA comments. Any interest in taking on this little package-deal project? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Middayexpress RfC/U

Thanks. Just one minor note. Buckshot didn't participate in that at all after his initial edits and posts to other editors (and email perhaps from what one editor said). Which doesn't leave me feeling optimistic about this. Why an Admin thought he could get a topic ban with an RfC/U is beyond me. All you need to do is read the instructions! Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, quite a few people commented there, so I thought it was worth writing a proper summary, should anyone want to progress it any further. As for the topic ban, I don't know; that's out of scope for RfC/U, but I suppose if several editors endorsed that view it might strengthen the case for requesting sanctions in another forum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Mad Max: Fury Road Union for a Popular Movement

You forgot to protect it. Just got it. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, wrong article. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalism to your userpage

Hi HJ

One of the bots made a report to AIV regarding this IP. From the filter they were trying to vandalise your userpage. Does this look like anyone's sock to you? Even if not thought you might like to know 5 albert square (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for taking care of them. Yeah, I blocked them the other day on a different IP for doing the same thing to Reaper Eternal's userpage. Reaper: friend of yours? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Aha! I KNEW it would make a pair somewhere!! Ah well I look forward to User:Mr.Z-bot defending my page over the coming days! 5 albert square (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your commentsOwais khursheed (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Hijacking History

It appears there are people that are professionals that are using Wikipedia to try to alter history to suit an Agenda. On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act at the spot marked Follow-up litigation it starts "As of August 2013, scores of lawsuits were still targeting parts of the ACA". Scores has been reduced to just 3 cases, all ending as of August 2013. The head of HHS has been giving speeches that the ACA is "Settled LAW", and no further action is required. These edits make it appear this is true. The Washington Post recently reported that "Reporters say White House sometimes demands changes to press-pool reports". Wikipedia has become the first line research for many people and children, to replace the hardcopy books in libraries. I attempted to add an update to 1 page of this document and found myself in the middle of a serious dispute, of what should be present. I think there should also be a page that documents every legal challenge to the ACA as a reference page, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_challenges_to_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act. It should have Date and Case No. I have emailed all my friends about this. We are not professionals or image makers. We do not know all the protocols and procedures, just concerned citizens173.67.162.239 (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

• Featured content: Oil paintings galore

• In the media: Indian political editing, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Congressional chelonii

• Recent research: 99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary

• Traffic report: Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland

• WikiProject report: GAN reviewers take note: competition time

• Arbitration report: Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Terry Miller (engineer)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Range block request

I found you through Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_make_range_blocks (you seemed to be the most recently active admin on that list), but I apologize for the interruption if you're not the right person to contact. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_rangeblock_for_108.5.64.0.2F21.2C_108.5.72.0.2F23.2C_and_108.5.74.0.2F24? The first time I posted it to AN/I it just sat there unanswered until it got moved to the archives. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've blocked 108.5.64.0/20 for a year. It doesn't look like anyone else is editing from that range, and they've been blocked several times previously. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ping for mop

Hi, just asking about for some admin eyes on the RfC at Talk:Kiger_Mustang#Request_for_comments_on_article_scope I've also requested speedy closure at the appropriate page. You'll figure it out when you get there, particularly if you start at the bottom and work back up... Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I was initially wondering what would be gained by closing it early, but having had another look, the discussion looks like it's only going to deteriorate further, making it even more unlikely that it will attract outside opinions, so I've closed it for everyone's sake. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My thinks! Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ming for pop!

I almost thought you were planning an RfA there for a moment, Montanabw :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'd assumed that Montana was an admin and was quite shocked when I just realised she wasn't! Montanabw: If you're ever looking for a nominator... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've pissed off far too many people to ever get the tools. Kiger horse, landrace, right now, John Walsh (U.S. politician), oh gawd, just watchlist my talk page, oh the ddrahmahz! And I haven't even yet used words like "F--K or "C--t" anywhere except on Corbett's talk page! No, I like to just stalk the responsible admins and request eyes as needed. Montanabw^(talk) 03:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2014 – September 2015

Hi Harry, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. Thanks for standing and all the best for the coming year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Rollback Request

Hi,

Thank you for responding on the rollback request page. So, do I continue to revert vandalism and contribute to Wikipedia and them request the right again?

Thanks!

Batreeqah ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just do what you do, and if you still want rollback in a few weeks, drop me a note or make another request there. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

'watch' tab

Hi, I have an account. I click 'watch' tab at the top of a page. But whenever someone do somethig in that page, it did not notify me. Why? Can you help me?

Hi, when you're logged in, you should see a link labelled "watchlist" towards the top right-hand corner of the window. Clicking that will take you to your watchlist, and that's where changes to articles you're watching will appear. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Still not clear. What actually is this wathclist? Whenever i write something on an article's talk page or i edit something, some user discover quickly what i have done. But how? They told me "thank to the watchlist". I thought that i will have notifications like when someone post something in my page or mention me somewhere. 109.154.0.143 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't get notifications, but the watchlist gives you a list of changes to the pages you're watching. A lot of editors use it to keep an eye on changes to a large number of pages, which can enable them to respond to things very quickly. Try logging in and adding a few pages to your watchlist then go to Special:Watchlist or click the "watchlist" link in the top right. Pick a busy page if you want to see quick results. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK

You inadvertently missed me for credits, and I took the liberty of adding it here. Just wanted you to know. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I don't know what happened. The credits must not have made it from the nomination to the prep area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IFYOUTYPEAPHRASEINCAPITALSSOMEONEWILLMAKEAREDIRECTTOANAPPROPRIATEPAGETOPROVIDEANANSWER listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:IFYOUTYPEAPHRASEINCAPITALSSOMEONEWILLMAKEAREDIRECTTOANAPPROPRIATEPAGETOPROVIDEANANSWER. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:IFYOUTYPEAPHRASEINCAPITALSSOMEONEWILLMAKEAREDIRECTTOANAPPROPRIATEPAGETOPROVIDEANANSWER redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that still exists? Ha! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)